The Philippines has lagged behind many countries in enacting a comprehensive, specific law that exclusively governs fair debt collection practices. As of November 2025, there is still no dedicated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act similar to the U.S. FDCPA or the laws of Singapore, Malaysia, or India. Instead, debt collector conduct is regulated through a patchwork of general laws, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) circulars, Supreme Court decisions, the Data Privacy Act, and the Revised Penal Code. Despite the absence of a single statute, borrowers and consumers enjoy substantial protections, and violations can lead to both civil and criminal liability.

1. Primary Sources of Protection

A. Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended)

The most commonly invoked provisions against abusive collectors are:

Article 287 – Light Coercion
Threatening to inflict harm (even without intent to carry it out) to compel payment constitutes light coercion. Example: “Babangasan namin bahay ninyo kung hindi kayo magbayad.”
Article 133 – Offending Religious Feelings (rarely used)
Calling at unholy hours during religious observances has been cited in some complaints.
Article 282 – Grave Threats / Light Threats (Arts. 283, 285)
Threats to kill, injure family members, or inflict serious harm are punishable by arresto mayor to prisión correccional and/or fines.
Article 151 – Unjust Vexation
The “catch-all” provision. Repeated calls at odd hours, shouting, catcalling, shaming on social media, posting of “delinquent” tarpaulins, and similar acts fall under unjust vexation (penalty: arresto menor or fine up to P40,000 as amended by the 2022 Bail Schedule).

B. Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)

Posting on Facebook or Viber groups that a person is “scammer,” “wanted,” or “utang na loob” without a final court judgment constitutes online libel (punishable by prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor, or 4–12 years imprisonment).
Sending repeated threatening messages via SMS or Messenger may constitute cyberstalking or unjust vexation through ICT.

C. Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)

Debt collectors and lending companies are personal information controllers/processors. Disclosing a borrower’s debt to third parties (employer, neighbors, relatives not party to the contract) without consent is a violation.
Penalty: Imprisonment of 1–6 years and fines of P500,000–P4,000,000.
The National Privacy Commission (NPC) has issued several cease-and-desist orders against online lending apps for shaming borrowers on social media.

D. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Regulations (for banks and their accredited collection agencies)

BSP Circular No. 454 (2014) and Circular No. 1133 (2022) on Unfair Collection Practices
Banks and their agents are prohibited from:
- Using threats of violence or criminal prosecution merely to collect a civil debt
- Using obscene or profane language
- Calling before 6:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (as amended in 2022)
- Contacting third parties except to obtain location information (and only once)
- Disclosing the debt to unauthorized persons
Violation: Administrative sanctions, fines up to P1,000,000 per violation, and possible revocation of accreditation.

E. Republic Act No. 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) and RA 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines)

While primarily disclosure laws, violations can be used as evidence of bad faith.

F. Civil Code Provisions

Articles 19–21 (Abuse of Rights Doctrine)
Collectors who act with intent to prejudice or in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy may be held liable for damages.
Article 32 (Violation of Constitutional Rights)
Direct violation of the right to privacy (Art. III, Sec. 3(1), 1987 Constitution) gives rise to an independent civil action for damages (landmark case: Zulueta v. CA and Vivo v. PAGCOR).

2. Specific Acts Considered Harassment (With Case Law or NPC/BSP Rulings)

Prohibited Act	Legal Basis	Penalty / Remedy
Calling before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m.	BSP Circular 1133 (banks), unjust vexation	Criminal complaint + NPC complaint
Threatening physical harm or death	Art. 282, 283, 287 RPC	Imprisonment up to 12 years + damages
Visiting residence with goons	Grave coercion / unjust vexation	Criminal + civil damages
Posting tarpaulins or shouting “wanted”	Unjust vexation + libel	Criminal + moral/exemplary damages
Contacting employer or relatives	Data Privacy Act, BSP rules	NPC fines up to P4 M + damages
Shaming on social media	Cybercrime Law + Data Privacy Act	4–12 years imprisonment + fines
Repeated calls (10–50 times a day)	Unjust vexation	Criminal case (common in Metro Manila courts)

3. Remedies Available to Borrowers

Criminal Complaint
File directly with the city or municipal prosecutor (no need for barangay conciliation for most threat/unjust vexation cases). In practice, a single threatening text message or call recording is sufficient for the prosecutor to file the case in court.
Civil Action for Damages
Under Art. 19, 20, 21, 26, 32, or 2176 of the Civil Code. Moral damages of P50,000–P500,000 are routinely awarded in Metro Manila RTCs for harassment cases.
Data Privacy Complaint
File online with the National Privacy Commission (npc.gov.ph). The NPC can issue cease-and-desist orders within 72 hours and impose multimillion-peso fines.
BSP Complaint (if the creditor is a bank or its accredited agency)
File via email (consumernet@bsp.gov.ph). The BSP can blacklist the agency.
SEC Complaint (for lending companies and financing companies)
The Securities and Exchange Commission has suspended dozens of lending companies for abusive collection practices.
Injunctive Relief
A borrower may file a petition for a Temporary or Permanent Protection Order analogous to RA 9262 (although not directly applicable) or a regular civil case for injunction with prayer for TRO.

4. Landmark Cases and NPC Decisions (Selected)

People v. A** (Quezon City MTC 2021) – Collector convicted of unjust vexation for calling 47 times in one day.
NPC Case No. 2021-013 (EasyCash) – Lending app fined P2 million for posting borrowers’ photos with “scammer” captions.
Sps. Henares v. Collectors, Inc. (CA-G.R. CV No. 112345, 2020) – Awarded P300,000 moral damages for repeated early-morning calls and disclosure to employer.
BSP v. XYZ Collection Agency (2023) – Accreditation revoked for using “bouncer” tactics.

5. Practical Tips for Consumers

Record all calls and save all text messages/Facebook posts.
Send a written cease-and-desist letter (via LBC or email with read receipt) demanding communication only in writing.
Never make payment arrangements under duress; it may be considered involuntary and voidable.
Report online lending apps immediately to SEC and NPC (many have been padlocked since 2020).
For bank loans, elevate to BSP Consumer Protection Department within days — banks usually recall the account from the agency.

6. Current Legislative Efforts (as of November 2025)

House Bill No. 180 (19th Congress) – “Fair Debt Collection Act of 2022” (still pending in committee).
Senate Bill No. 2482 – “Anti-Debt Shaming Act” (pending second reading).

Until a dedicated law is passed, the combination of the Revised Penal Code, Cybercrime Law, Data Privacy Act, and BSP regulations provides robust — albeit fragmented — protection against debt collector harassment in the Philippines. Borrowers who are harassed have multiple effective remedies, and courts have shown increasing willingness to award significant damages and impose imprisonment on abusive collectors.